• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Did Intel Make A Big Mistake With sandy Bridge?

Diddums said:
It says a lot about the current rate of progress in the CPU world when many are happy with their 5 year old Sandy Bridge chips, including me.
Click to expand...

Thing is though, is the demand for more performance than a clocked SB actually there? IE what do most of us do that requires more than what we have?

Would an intel mega chip improve 95% of people's actual PC experience? Doubtful, so I can't see there being any big leaps until they're needed, probably the release of some new tech that requires monster compute power or something may yield us a big leap, but for what we all use them for now, and the foreseeable future, we don't need anything faster so they won't make it.

Let's be real for a second, most of us are PC enthusiasts who like to play games at higher quality and at higher frame rates, we like snappy application performance and load times, and yet a good proportion of us are still more than happy with 5 year old CPU designs, so what does that say about what the average Joe would still be happy with?
 
Last edited:
On the one hand I'm happy that my 2700K was an excellent investment, as it seems to run stuff like it was released yesterday, but at the same time I feel annoyed that nothing in the mainstream desktop CPU space has really progressed in the last several years.
 
2500k is a cracking CPU..

I think the issue as said before is about the applications we try to use with CPUs.

Gaming - doesn't really touch the potential of CPUs - therefor, not much difference.

Rendering/calculations - can beast the CPU, therefor, if there is a lot of work you differences can be night and day.

My guess is that Intel are looking a power reductions as THE priority and application performance specific design philosophies come second.

But, as said before it's application specific. As long as it performs, I couldn't really care less about a CPU hitting 5Ghz..
 
Smelly has it right, there's plenty of difference in newer CPUs for programs that can make full use of them, but gaming simply isn't there and likely won't be for a long time. And thank frick for that because if you're not oozing money then it means you can just enjoy upgrading the GPU only and still game at high quality.
 
my 3570k clocked happily to 4.6ghz but the temps were too high so ran it at 4.4ghz, my 2700k will do 5Ghz but I need better cooling still to hit that.

Using the same cooling I did for the 3570k, the 2700k hits 4.8ghz at the same temps (70c) as the 3570k did at 4.4ghz, hyperthreading is nice and the 2700k really boosted my GPU's

I wouldn't say intel made a mistake with sandy, they made a mistake moving from solider to TIM that's for sure but in the scheme of things unless something major happens in CPU's which is doubtful then I fully expect to be keeping the 2700k for a good few years to come

pretty happy with 4.8 @ 1.376v but once my watercooling loop is in there I'll try to give it the beans
 
Last edited:
Maybe instead of pointing the finger at Intel we should be pointing it at the game engine devs who don't seem to be utilising the full potential of a multi core CPU.
 
There is some truth I would latch onto telecasters post whereby historically developers did not have to utilise the processing potential of multi-core or probably lacked either the time or knowledge.

Now the consoles have harmonised with the PC architecture the only way to improve going forward is to utilise the cores and program for parallel computing. Regardless of having fast processors, when implemented correctly many slower cores should beat one/two fast cores.

Specific software out there does this right now. Games need to catch up if they can tap into this potential.
 
To those arguing that intel are not stuck in a rut, consider the high performance commercial and industrial sectors. IBM and Sparc have been pushing out huge advances in the last 4-5 years that intel have been turning over mediocre incremental improvements. It's at the point where a 12 core Power8 outperforms a 12 core xeon by a factor of 2.

My point is, it's only the x86/x86-64 sector that's stagant. AMD's inability to challenge intel does not excuse intel's inability to push forward. Intel are not doing this deliberately, they're struggling to develop significant improvements.

Consider the workstation market, where there is no such thing as enough cpu performance. 20 years ago they were all running Sparc or SGI or some other proprietary cpu architecture on various flavours of unix. Then the first xeons came around and offered similar performance at lower cost. Everybody switched to x86 and Windows in the next few years and intel has dominated the workstation market ever since. Now, intel are dragging their heels too much and should be worried about losing ground in this sector. A few big names have already made moves back to *nix where they are not tied to x86.

If intel can't get their act together the next ten years is going to see them left with the desktop/office pc market and nothing else.
 
I don't see a problem with what Intel are doing. There is no point in them attempting to develop for games further until they are capable of using what we already have. Instead they have worked towards rending software and lowering the power consumption for mobile cpu's in particular.

This benefits us far more than having a CPU that is beef cake but provides no benefits other than being more expensive.

As for AMD, I don't even know anymore. I doubt I'll ever own an AMD CPU and probably not a GPU either. Just don't value them as a company and would rather pay a bit more for a better product.
 
Really interesting read.

So, I've seen a few people basically saying that in their view there is no need/point in an upgrade to Haswell from Sandybridge.

As someone who recently built with a G3258 and the intention of upgrading to an i5k or Broadwell (although not sure what's going on with that??) would you advise waiting for Skylake or even (knowing what you know now) try and get hold of a second hand 2500/2700k bundle and wait it out?
 
I got 2 sandybridge's CPU in my household. One was i7 2700K on my pc and other one was i7 2600K on my daughter's pc. Quite happy with it and no regret at all not to upgrade to Ivybridge, Haswell nor Broadwell too.
 
I was thinking of upgrading soon, currently running a i5 3750k which was 4.5Ghz but had a few blue screens and hangs so diled it down to 4.4 and a while after same again so tried more volts but its right up at 1.3 - 1.32 volts which is too much for my liking. Many people say ivy should do 4.5Ghz on 1.28 easy so mine doesn't. So now running 4.3 at 1.29 volts with 1866Mhz ram and a 290x.

Was going to upgrade to skylake hoping they did something similar to skylake as they did Haswell with the devil canyons but the way you guys are talking me moving to the next architecture on a i7 would not be much of a upgrade? Even if the i7 came out as 4Ghz out of the box with 4.4 Turbo?
 
I feel like since Sandy Bridge, they only give us minor improvements each time. Obviously this makes sense as AMD are no real competition. I miss the days when the newest gen would completely destroy the previous gen and was almost always considered a must have upgrade.

Still running a 2700k at 4.8 on a D14, have no intention to upgrade until it gives me more than a 10% increase.
 
It's very hard to get i7 2700K these days now!

Updated: I found other company in Stoke on Trent do have in stock of i7 2700K BX80623I72700K (Availability: 99995 item(s)? I going to email this company because I think it false misleading as Intel no longer have i7 2700K.
 
Last edited:
I'm looking forward to trying out sb-e (3930k) after years of AMD cpus. It's sitting on my desk waiting for the board to arrive.

At £200 I think it's a better idea than a 4790k and should last me a good few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom